Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Video games

WikiProject Video games

Main page

talk

Archives

Archive index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177

Project watchlist

• view
• talk
• edit
• changes

Use of past-tense in lead sections

Can I put forward that the use of past tense in lead sections for discontinued yet publicly-released games be revisited as a concept. While I can understand the use of past tense for projects that never released, given we can't actually say they were ever a complete piece of media, the continued use of past tense stands out in contrast to the view taken in both the general manual of style (MOS:TENSE) and those used on comparative media ones too (MOS:TVNOW,MOS:FILMNOW). Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:45, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Unlike other media which is usable even after a final printing or discontuation, once released but shuttered games that rely on the online connectivity become no longer playable following the shuttering, so for all purposes, the game no longer exists in a playable form. Hence why we have used past tense for those games. — Masem (t) 23:28, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

While they may not be playable that still doesn’t remove the fact they exist though.

There are plenty of examples of lost media items that we still refer to in present tense because it exists (wiped tv episodes for instance), so it’s odd for video games to still have a MOS that conflicts with the others. Rambling Rambler (talk) 07:47, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Listing platforms for "enhanced" versions/remasters

There are a lot of articles where a platform for a game that it didn't initially release on is included under the Platforms section. Backwards-compatibility examples should not be listed per WP:VG/PLATFORMS, but does this still include "enhanced" versions, or what could almost be considered a remaster, of the game? To pluck an example out of the air, Horizon Zero Dawn received a PC release in 2020, which is improved over the PS4 version. The PC version is mentioned as one of the game's platforms on its article.

Similarly, if a game receives an official remaster, but one which doesn't have its own article, is what it's available on eligible to be listed under Platforms? For example, Skyrim was remastered for PS4, Xbox One, and PC in 2016, which are all listed as platforms for the game on its article. If remasters can, should it come with a note saying it's a remastered version? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 21:12, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Remasters on modern platforms should be considered no different than any other port, meaning they should be included unless a specific article for it exists. Noting them is optional but helpful, I've actually begun to do that practice myself more in other articles. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:44, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@Dissident93 So you're saying the MoS shouldn't be followed as a rule and that any port/re-release/remaster (without their own articles) should be included? I'm sure you understood but just in case I am just referring to the Platform section in the infobox, not the Release information. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 09:33, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I hadn't read the bottom of the section in the MoS which I see now mentions remasters/remakes! Wikibenboy94 (talk) 13:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't even aware the MOS specifically brought this up or I simply would have linked you instead. But yes, they are no different than any other proper port in terms of how we handle them in infoboxes. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

"High Score!"

What is the consensus on including material like "World Records" or "High Scores" within articles? I'd imagine if it received significant media coverage, it can be mentioned (i.e: Donkey Kong high score competition per the coverage of the film and the media notoriety around Billy Mitchell, etc.). I see that Twin Galaxies is seen as an acceptable source, but have not found anything in the MOS or talk pages on how or if these should be included. I'm leaning towards "sure" if there is coverage from something other than a Twin Galaxies or what not, but would want to know how others feel. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't mention it without multiple reliable sources, which I'd probably peg around 3, myself. Twin Galaxies itself is seen as a situational source now, following change in ownership. Every game has some form of speed running these days so it's rather routine without direct coverage. -- ferret (talk) 23:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

That is what I gathered. Thanks ferret! Andrzejbanas (talk) 06:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)